5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Świdnica, Poland. He immigrated to Germany in February 1987.
6.  On 28 July 1995 the applicant applied to the Aschaffenburg Labour Office for child benefits for his daughter under the Federal Child Benefits Act.
7.  On 18 August 1995 the Labour Office dismissed the applicant's request under Section 1 § 3 of the Federal Child Benefits Act. It considered that the applicant only had a limited residence entitlement for exceptional purposes, and not an unlimited residence permit or provisional residence permit, as required under that section.
8.  On 15 September 1995 the applicant filed an administrative objection against the decision of the Labour Office. On 12 October 1995 the Federal Labour Office rejected his objection. On 14 November 1995 the applicant lodged an action with the Würzburg Social Court.
9.  Following a reform of the law on child benefits with effect from 1 January 1996, an equivalent provision on child benefits was introduced in Section 62 § 2 of the Income Tax Act, replacing Section 1 § 3 of the Federal Child Benefits Act. Persons subject to income tax were to receive child benefits on the basis of Section 62 § 2 of the Income Tax Act; persons not subject to income tax received child benefits on the basis of an amended provision in the Federal Child Benefits Act.
10.  In April 1997 the applicant obtained an unlimited residence permit. The applicant received child benefits from April 1997 until July 1997, after which the payments were stopped due to the applicant's lack of cooperation.
11.  On 21 April 1997 the Social Court dismissed the applicant's action regarding child benefits for the period from July 1995 to March 1997. As to the child benefits from April 1997, the Social Court noted that the action was moot; the transcript of the hearing indicated that the parties had agreed that the matter before the Social Court solely concerned the child benefits prior to April 1997. The applicant requested amendment of the transcript and amendment of the Social Court judgment to include his claim for child benefits from April 1997. The Social Court rejected the request for amendment of the transcript on 29 August 1997 and the request for amendment of the judgment in a further judgment dated 8 September 1997. The applicant appealed against both judgments.
12.  On 20 October 1997, in order to decide whether following the reform of the law on child benefits the social courts were competent to decide on the applicant's claim for child benefits from 1 January 1996, the Social Court of Appeal asked the applicant to submit documents to show that he was subject to income tax. The Social Court of Appeal reiterated this request several times, the last time on 8 January 1998, but the applicant failed to submit the relevant documents.
13.  By decisions of 22 January 1998 and 23 April 1998, as the applicant did not submit the relevant documents for the period from 1 January 1996 and in order to expedite proceedings, the Social Court of Appeal decided to sever the proceedings on the appeal lodged against the judgment of 21 April 1997, separating the claim for child benefits into two periods: until 31 December 1995 and from 1 January 1996. The latter part was joined with the appeal against the judgment of 8 September 1997.
14.  On 29 January 1998 the applicant filed a motion of bias against the judge who had decided to sever the proceedings. The motion was dismissed on 24 March 1998. Against the judges involved in the decision of 24 March 1998, the applicant again lodged a motion of bias, which was rejected as inadmissible on 23 April 1998.
15.  On 23 April 1998 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal concerning his claims until 31 December 1995. On 18 March 1999 the Federal Social Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law. On 21 October 1999 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to entertain his constitutional complaint and held that his request for an interim measure was accordingly moot.
16.  In the pending proceedings concerning the applicant's claim for child benefits from 1 January 1996, the Social Court of Appeal continued to request further documents (first such request dated 28 October 1998). The applicant failed to submit the requested documents and refused to do so by letter of 4 February 1999. The Social Court of Appeal eventually obtained the documents from different authorities, such as the Labour Office and the Administrative Court.
17.  On 2 February 2001 the applicant filed a motion of bias, which was rejected at the hearing of 15 February 2001. At the hearing the applicant reiterated his motion for bias, which was rejected as being abusive and declared inadmissible.
18.  On 15 February 2001 the Social Court of Appeal set aside the Social Court's judgment of 21 April 1997 in so far as the applicant claimed child benefits for the period from 1 January 1996, remitting the case back to the Würzburg Social Court. It also granted the appeal against the judgment of 8 September 1997. The applicant requested amendment of the appeal judgment and filed a motion of bias. On 27 March 2001 the motion for bias was rejected as manifestly abusive; on 19 April 2001 the Social Court of Appeal rejected the request to amend the appeal judgment.
19.  On 4 April 2001 the applicant filed a request for leave to appeal before the Federal Social Court and filed a motion of bias against the judges of the 10th and 14th Chamber of the Federal Social Court. On 28 May 2001 the Federal Social Court rejected the motion of bias as manifestly abusive and dismissed the request for leave to appeal.
20.  On 3 July 2001 the Social Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the applicant's claims regarding child benefits for the period from 1 January 1996 and referred the proceedings to the Nuremberg Tax Court. The applicant objected to the referral. The parties agreed to suspend proceedings before the Nuremberg Tax Court until a decision was rendered on the objection; on 19 September 2001 the Nuremberg Tax Court suspended the proceedings. On 28 January 2002 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the objection. The Nuremberg Tax Court received the decision of the Social Court of Appeal on 26 March 2002; on 28 March 2002 the Nuremberg Tax Court decided to resume the proceedings.
21.  On 6 June 2002 the Tax Court informed the parties that the Federal Tax Court had, in different proceedings, expressed doubts as to the conformity of Section 62 § 2 of the Income Tax Act with the German Basic Law. The Nuremberg Tax Court asked the parties whether, in these circumstances, they agreed to suspend the proceedings until the Federal Tax Court had ruled on the issue. On 4 July 2002 the applicant objected to suspending the proceedings.
22.  On 6 April 2006 the Tax Court granted the applicant's claim for child benefits from January 1996, rejecting only his claim for interest.
It noted that the Federal Constitutional Court had ruled on 6 July 2004 that Section 1 § 3 of the Child Benefits Act was incompatible with the right to equal treatment under Article 3 of the Basic Law; the Federal Constitutional Court had also added that if the Child Benefits Act was not amended until 1 January 2006, the law of 1993 should be applied to cases that were not subject to a final decision. It held that the Federal Constitutional Court's ruling was to be taken into account for the equivalent provision on child benefits regulated in Section 62 § 2 of the Income Tax Act. In the light of the Federal Constitutional Court's ruling, the applicant was found to be entitled to child benefits under the relevant provision of the Income Tax Act.
23.  The defendant appealed against the Tax Court's judgment on 24 May 2006, but withdrew the appeal on 12 October 2007. On 19 October 2007 the Federal Tax Court terminated the proceedings on the ground of that withdrawal.